Ariel Siegel, Annotation 10 November 7th, 2011
Too Hot Not To Handle WC: 1218
Too Hot Not to Handle, Maryann DeLeo and Ellen Goosenberg Kent, 2006
The main argument of the story is focused on the extensive use of fossil fuels and how it has contributed to a dangerous climate change which we can see results in our daily lives. This documentary serves to caution and educate those on global warming and the pursuit of true information that argues sustainability and environmental awareness. This film addresses heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters, expansion of specific viruses (Influenza, SARS, etcetera)
The main argument is sustained by the ecological changes in the weather and the increasingly persistent problems with the environment one of the most being affected by greenhouse gases and the degradation of the ozone layer. There is still skepticism with any perspective as such as one as monumental as global warming or “climate change.” We have to address that we cannot control the environment and make it bend to satisfy our productivity, wealth, and power. In this investigation and representation of global warming, DeLeo and Kent ask the initial necessary questions that need to be addressed, as stated before this is a cautionary documentary that hopes to ensure a natural balance or equilibrium between nature and “beast.”
The sustainability problems that this film demonstrates includes: political, cultural, while mostly ecological. The politics behind global warming makes it a rather hot topic of necessary change battling against inherent perceptions that inhibit and prevent our ability to address our use of fossil fuels as a problem. With respect to culture, the politics and social understanding relates back to the American collective identity and disregard for the consequences of our actions. However this issue is not just black and white, but is complex and difficult to represent unifying research and facts (when data is manipulated or misinterpreted and ultimately contradicting data). How do we know that global warming is real? Well this film delves into the questions that will lead to a more sustainable future. Yet this discussion also represents the
The parts of the film that were most compelling include the focus on water issues which demonstrated the effect on our water supply, aqueous chemistry, drought, and other instances of the environment taking a hit due to the lack of sustainability and alternative energy resources and technologies. The statements of leading scientists in this field describe the evidence and what it means with respect to hurricanes, snow pack, hybrid vehicles as well as demonstrating how businesses, local governments, and individuals took the step towards sustainability and environmental awareness and recognition of consequences
The parts of the film that were not convincing include the lack of evidence with the alternative technologies. It circulates and reinforces the mentality and perspective that we can still live our consumption-driven lives without changing the “American way of life” but this is entirely unrealistic. Not only in the argument of alternative energies include that due to a higher efficiency that we alternatively use the resource more. This can be seen in the example of hybrid cars, where the manufacture and production of these vehicles does promote quite a significant cost to the environment.
The film best addresses the general public, in particular Americans who have a tendency to overuse and consume energy, with a correlation as previously seen in suburban communities. This is more an asset with educating the science of global warming, in particular greenhouse gases the effect on the ozone, as well as the instability of the balance of nature
In order to enhance the environmental educational value of the film, the following could improve the overall message of the film: include correct information about alternative energies. The solutions to the energy crisis will not be invented with limited tradeoffs but it is necessary to solve this problem, without circulating wrong solutions. The information about this issue is a sustainability issue within itself, and this film half represents correct scientific information yet a completely deluded demonstration of solutions. This film does not address that the culture within itself is not sustainable, as seen with suburban neighborhoods and their increased consumption has come full circle. This issue will only get worse with the increasing amount of films that are trying to convey sustainability, but are flooding the information channels with incorrect and unnecessary clutter. Media is surrounding us, so shouldn't we recycle the good message of the film or should we change our perspective and portrayal of information?
Suggestions for actions or points of intervention include an unclear representation of alternative energies. As discussed in previous sections and the following section, there are many organizations that attempt to help improve the environment, yet the political system does not adapt easily especially with the unclear information where there is still uncertainty and disbelief that global warming even exists. Is this all just a hoax? In order to do this a change in media as well as the information available after the explosion and overpopulation of information, which may or may not be true.
Due to the importance of this issue, after doing more research three references shed light on the issue in a way in which the film did not. In the first reference of the EPA, it provides general information to the general public. However policy is often slow, but this includes understanding the issue and hopefully getting involved. Political activism, in my perspective, has diminished due to the complexity of the issue and the slow process. For some individuals want to have an immediate impact, especially considering the prevalence and dominance of corporations in corruption and deception. It provides all information to understand climate change but there are so many references and organizations which aim to advocate for environmental safety, awareness, and behavior.
The second reference focuses on a non-government organization which is divided with respect to region as well as global situation overviews, and massive information with various alternative energies as well as issues within food and agriculture. An organization like this is oftentimes non-profit, and in this case it is. They include publications and use of green practices within their organization (ie: office). The combination of the general public with scientists is a great thing for these great minds are oftentimes excited to spread their knowledge, insight and enthusiasm for the topic/issue (does not exist in the RPI realm of education).
“Global Warming.” Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>
The third reference states that the Too Hot Not to Handle film represents correct information when concerning the science of climate change, yet there is not an inclusive analysis of renewable energy. It's “deceptive handling of renewable energy information” represents a media and propaganda sustainability problem. These documentary films all have different purposes and have certain connections with corporations. But regardless it does educate about the cause, but the push of a not so green alternative is tied to profit in our market economy. This reference provides the film with a similar aspect of creating a spark of interest such as seen in comedy news and whether it enhances educational and environmental
Kane, Michael. “Dead Wrong!: Dangerous Renewable Energy Propaganda.” Wilderness Publications, 2006. <<http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/060606_dead_wrong.shtml>>
Too Hot Not To Handle WC: 1218
- Too Hot Not to Handle, Maryann DeLeo and Ellen Goosenberg Kent, 2006
- The main argument of the story is focused on the extensive use of fossil fuels and how it has contributed to a dangerous climate change which we can see results in our daily lives. This documentary serves to caution and educate those on global warming and the pursuit of true information that argues sustainability and environmental awareness. This film addresses heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters, expansion of specific viruses (Influenza, SARS, etcetera)
- The main argument is sustained by the ecological changes in the weather and the increasingly persistent problems with the environment one of the most being affected by greenhouse gases and the degradation of the ozone layer. There is still skepticism with any perspective as such as one as monumental as global warming or “climate change.” We have to address that we cannot control the environment and make it bend to satisfy our productivity, wealth, and power. In this investigation and representation of global warming, DeLeo and Kent ask the initial necessary questions that need to be addressed, as stated before this is a cautionary documentary that hopes to ensure a natural balance or equilibrium between nature and “beast.”
- The sustainability problems that this film demonstrates includes: political, cultural, while mostly ecological. The politics behind global warming makes it a rather hot topic of necessary change battling against inherent perceptions that inhibit and prevent our ability to address our use of fossil fuels as a problem. With respect to culture, the politics and social understanding relates back to the American collective identity and disregard for the consequences of our actions. However this issue is not just black and white, but is complex and difficult to represent unifying research and facts (when data is manipulated or misinterpreted and ultimately contradicting data). How do we know that global warming is real? Well this film delves into the questions that will lead to a more sustainable future. Yet this discussion also represents the
- The parts of the film that were most compelling include the focus on water issues which demonstrated the effect on our water supply, aqueous chemistry, drought, and other instances of the environment taking a hit due to the lack of sustainability and alternative energy resources and technologies. The statements of leading scientists in this field describe the evidence and what it means with respect to hurricanes, snow pack, hybrid vehicles as well as demonstrating how businesses, local governments, and individuals took the step towards sustainability and environmental awareness and recognition of consequences
- The parts of the film that were not convincing include the lack of evidence with the alternative technologies. It circulates and reinforces the mentality and perspective that we can still live our consumption-driven lives without changing the “American way of life” but this is entirely unrealistic. Not only in the argument of alternative energies include that due to a higher efficiency that we alternatively use the resource more. This can be seen in the example of hybrid cars, where the manufacture and production of these vehicles does promote quite a significant cost to the environment.
- The film best addresses the general public, in particular Americans who have a tendency to overuse and consume energy, with a correlation as previously seen in suburban communities. This is more an asset with educating the science of global warming, in particular greenhouse gases the effect on the ozone, as well as the instability of the balance of nature
- In order to enhance the environmental educational value of the film, the following could improve the overall message of the film: include correct information about alternative energies. The solutions to the energy crisis will not be invented with limited tradeoffs but it is necessary to solve this problem, without circulating wrong solutions. The information about this issue is a sustainability issue within itself, and this film half represents correct scientific information yet a completely deluded demonstration of solutions. This film does not address that the culture within itself is not sustainable, as seen with suburban neighborhoods and their increased consumption has come full circle. This issue will only get worse with the increasing amount of films that are trying to convey sustainability, but are flooding the information channels with incorrect and unnecessary clutter. Media is surrounding us, so shouldn't we recycle the good message of the film or should we change our perspective and portrayal of information?
- Suggestions for actions or points of intervention include an unclear representation of alternative energies. As discussed in previous sections and the following section, there are many organizations that attempt to help improve the environment, yet the political system does not adapt easily especially with the unclear information where there is still uncertainty and disbelief that global warming even exists. Is this all just a hoax? In order to do this a change in media as well as the information available after the explosion and overpopulation of information, which may or may not be true.
- Due to the importance of this issue, after doing more research three references shed light on the issue in a way in which the film did not. In the first reference of the EPA, it provides general information to the general public. However policy is often slow, but this includes understanding the issue and hopefully getting involved. Political activism, in my perspective, has diminished due to the complexity of the issue and the slow process. For some individuals want to have an immediate impact, especially considering the prevalence and dominance of corporations in corruption and deception. It provides all information to understand climate change but there are so many references and organizations which aim to advocate for environmental safety, awareness, and behavior.
The second reference focuses on a non-government organization which is divided with respect to region as well as global situation overviews, and massive information with various alternative energies as well as issues within food and agriculture. An organization like this is oftentimes non-profit, and in this case it is. They include publications and use of green practices within their organization (ie: office). The combination of the general public with scientists is a great thing for these great minds are oftentimes excited to spread their knowledge, insight and enthusiasm for the topic/issue (does not exist in the RPI realm of education).“Climate Change.” US Environmental Protection Agency. <<http://epa.gov/climatechange/>>
“Global Warming.” Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. <<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/>>
The third reference states that the Too Hot Not to Handle film represents correct information when concerning the science of climate change, yet there is not an inclusive analysis of renewable energy. It's “deceptive handling of renewable energy information” represents a media and propaganda sustainability problem. These documentary films all have different purposes and have certain connections with corporations. But regardless it does educate about the cause, but the push of a not so green alternative is tied to profit in our market economy. This reference provides the film with a similar aspect of creating a spark of interest such as seen in comedy news and whether it enhances educational and environmental
Kane, Michael. “Dead Wrong!: Dangerous Renewable Energy Propaganda.” Wilderness Publications, 2006. <<http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/060606_dead_wrong.shtml>>